"Dr. Reynolds...insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer.He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, " What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so."

In 1604, the Church of England commissioned a new English translation of the Scripture, which later became known as the King JamesVersion. According to it dedication to the king, the hope was that this new version would counteract the barbs of Catholics and a foil to the self-conceited Protestants who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil  [Preface and dedication to the King, 1611 King James Bible], namely religious dissenters like the Baptists and others. Ironically, the Church of England had moved to other translations and the King James Bible (K.J.V.) had become, at least for a time, the translation for those groups that would have been considered dissenters. Today, the New International Version has become the best selling translation among Protestants, but the King James is still widely used and revered by non-Catholics.

Bible translations are interesting in that they can provide a snapshot of the beliefs of their translators at that time. The Latin Vulgate, for example, can show us how certain words were understood in the fourth century when it was translated by St. Jerome. The King James Bible is no exception. When one compares the original 1611 edition with subsequent editions, one can discern some very important changes in viewpoints.

If you own a King James Bible, the first and biggest change you will notice is that the original

1611 edition contained several extra books in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments labeled The books of the Apocrypha. The appendix includes several books, which are found in the Catholic Old Testament such as the books of Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and others.

Table of Contents KJV 1611

Some may be tempted to dismiss the omission of these books from the King James Bible as superfluous add on to the translation and that its omission really does not change anything important about the King James Bible. On the contrary, the so-called "Apocrypha formed an integral part of the text, so much so that the Protestant scholar E. G. Goodspeed once wrote:

[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them. Otherwise a false impression is created. [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]

If you pick up a modern copy of the King James Version and open to the title page, chances are youll not see any mention of the deliberate omission of these books (e.g. The King James Version without the Apocrypha). After all, who would want to put a negative statement about a product on the title page? However, perhaps to avoid false advertising, publishers do notify you that books are missing by cleverly stating the contents in a positive fashion like The King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments. If you didnt know that the Apocrypha was omitted, youd probably assume that complete King James Bible since most modern Protestant Bibles contain only the Old and New Testaments anyway. Hence, as Goodspeed warns a false impression is created.

The Cross-references

The King James Apocrypha had a much more integral roll in its early editions than simply being an appendix unconnected to the two Testaments. Instead, the 1611 King James Bible included (like the Geneva Bible) cross-references from the Old and New Testaments to the so-called Apocrypha. Like modern cross-references, these were meant to refer the reader back to the text cited in order to provide further light on what had just been read. There were 11 cross-references in the New Testament and 102 Old Testament that referred Protestant readers back to the Apocrypha. The New Testament cross-references were:

In addition to the eleven cross-references in the New Testament, the 1611 King James also sported 102 cross-reference in the Old Testament as well bringing to total up to 113 cross-references to and from the Apocrypha overall. No wonder Goodspeed could say that the "Apocrypha" was an integral part of the King James Bible!

The King James Bible was not the only early Protestant Bible to contain the Apocrypha with cross-references. As we have seen in a previous article (Pilgrims Regress: The Geneva Bible and the Apocrypha), the "Apocrypha" also played an integral role in other Protestant Bibles as well.

As I mentioned earlier, translations serve as historical snapshots of the beliefs of the translators and readers. The very presence of these cross-references shows that the translators believed that the "Apocrypha" was at work within the New Testament writings and that Protestant Bible readers would benefit from reading and studying the New and Old Testaments in light of these books. Sadly, today this noble heritage has been lost.

Now You Read Them, Now You Dont

Those who viewed the "Apocrypha" as somehow being the last vestige of "popery" pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the "Apocrypha") as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther's Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The "Apocrypha" remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the "bigger" Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800's enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the "Apocrypha" was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the "Apocrypha." It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the "Apocrypha" appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the "Apocrypha" until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin. [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called "Apocrypha" and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther's gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an "Apocrypha" appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

Sorry, I've been out of town for a few days and just got back today...to THIS post 371 of yours??

Actually, I don't believe you know at all about Paul's ministry and how "it merges with the Twelve, or really, complements it." So you believe that Jesus Christ was speaking metaphorically to the Twelve when He promised them they would be sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel during His Millennial reign? You believe He was actually speaking about the "church", God's spiritual Israel.?? James, too...And Paul...?

"WE" haven't determined anything of the sort that the APostles were to "judge the church" OR that the message of the Twelve and Paul were the same. How, for instance, do you explain this Scripture?

"According to the GRACE OF GOD WHICH IS GIVEN UNTO ME, as a wise masterbuilder, I HAVE LAID THE FOUNDATION, and another buildeth thereon, But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon."1 Cor. 3:10.

WHAT??? Paul SPECIFICALLY says, by the Holy Spirit, that HE laid the FOUNDATION OF THE GRACE OF GOD. He goes on: "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." v. 11.

Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone for the Kingdom gospel, the Messianic Church built by the Twelve, AND the gospel of the grace of God, built by Paul. BOTH with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. But ONE is for an earthly kingdom of believers, Israel, and the OTHER is for a heavenly body of believers, US.

I've told you MANY times before why Paul went to the Jews first. Either you don't read my posts, or you forget very easily. He had a ministry of confirmation that Christ was Israel's Messiah, and he performed that ministry as long as Israel was operational. But he also had a ministry of revelation to the Gentiles. The gospel of grace. The reconciliation of God and man BY THE GOSPEL. The formation of the Church the Body of Christ.

The Church the Body of Christ was NOT built on Peter and the Apostles.

"But I certify you, brethren, that the GOSPEL which was preached of me is NOT AFTER MAN. For I NEITHER RECEIVED IT OF MAN, NEITHER WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT BY REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST." Gal. 1:11,12. That verse, along with 1 Cor. 3:10, that I gave you earlier, should make it very clear.

Next I'm going to give you about 10 points concerning Paul's ministry, to compare with the points I gave you concernining the ministry of the Twelve. Then we can compare the two, and see if indeed, they "merge", or are the same.

ONe more thing, it's not "anti-catholic fantasies" that drive us. It's the TRUTH of God's Word, rightly divided, that drives us. It's preaching the word, reproving, rebuking, exhorting with all longsuffering and doctrine that drives us. It's the absolute disgust with deceit and charlatans that drive us. It's studying the word to be an effective workman for God, one who does not want to be ashamed when we stand before Him, that drives us. If you see your church in any of those reasons, I would check my Bible for more information.

401
posted on 03/29/2012 3:25:26 PM PDT
by smvoice
(Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)

I think I have also explained to you why Peter converted the first Gentile, not Paul. But I will explain it again. Although just reading the Scriptures on it should be enough. Acts, Chapter 10. Peter has a vision. WHAT?? WHY on earth would God need to show Peter a vision about Cornelius? Weren't the Twelve instructed to go ALL the world, every nation, with the gospel? There should have been NO REASON to give Peter a vision of something he already knew. UNLESS something else is going on here. And of course, according to Scripture, it is.

This is Acts 10, remember that. The Twelve have been empowered by the Holy Spirit since the Day of Pentecost. Preaching the gospel of the grace of God and the Body of Christ...WAIT...that's WRONG..they've been preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, the restoration of Israel, and Israel's acceptance of Christ as Messiah since the day of Pentecost... But that should still be okay to go to Cornelius, after all, the gospel IS the gospel, right?

"Then Peter went down to the men which were sent u nto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek; what is the cause wherefore ye are come? And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, AND ONE THAT FEARETH GOD, and of GOOD REPORT AMONG ALL THE NATION OF THE JEWS, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and the hear the words of thee." 10:21.

Make no mistake, Peter didn't jump on the first train and make haste to Cornelius to save a Gentile, Acts 10: 17 says that Peter DOUBTED IN HIMSELF WHAT THIS VISION WHICH HE HAD SEEN SHOULD MEAN"...

What's more: "ANd he (Peter) said unto them (those who had gathered together), Ye KNOW how that it is an UNLAWFUL THING for a man who IS A JEW to KEEP COMPANY, OR COME UNTO ONE OF ANOTHER NATION; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."Acts10:27,28.

This Apostle, filled with the Holy Spirit and with power was given a VISION to go to Cornelius. OBVIOUSLY it was a SPECIAL EVENT. He even DOUBTED IN HIMSELF WHAT THE VISION MEANT. Not exactly a "take the gospel to all nations" kind of event, Mark.

and BTW, Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13), was saved in Acts 9. So what was the point in God sending a vision to Peter to go to Cornelius, the Gentile? So that, when Paul came to the Twelve with his gospel to the Gentiles, Peter would have a starting place with Gentiles. That vision from God. That he doubted. Because he knew it was unlawful to come unto one of another nation. THAT'S how Peter knew Paul's gospel to the uncircumcision was true. And therefore loosed himself and the 11 to take the gospel of the kingdom to all nations, giving the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, with their gospel of the grace of God. That's what Galatians, Chapter 2 is all about.

402
posted on 03/29/2012 4:03:18 PM PDT
by smvoice
(Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)

Well, thank you for your helpful concern. But since I have not even posted the FIRST, how could you know what I’m going to post? Perhaps you are jumping to conclusions, or just attempting to read my mind? Now, because I do not go to links to get information, I can tell you already your attempts are in vain. But don’t let that stop you.

404
posted on 03/29/2012 4:17:55 PM PDT
by smvoice
(Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)

Really? I think I’ve told you many times that I do not go to links for information. I give you the sources I use, including authors, chapter numbers, page numbers, and column numbers, if available. Or didn’t you notice that in my posts? As many times as you’ve asked, is how many times I have told you this. It really should be a moot point by now..Anyone can go to any link that person wants to, and gleen any information available. I’m just telling you (agai) that is not what I do personally. But thanks for bringing it up again. It never hurts to remind some over and over.

407
posted on 03/29/2012 5:00:10 PM PDT
by smvoice
(Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)

Yes, I'm sorry, I do Google searches. For Williams-Sonoma.com and Amazon, and Food Network. Do those count?

If a person spent as much time actually studying God's Word rather than linking to links that link to other links, that would be a person much better equipped to be an effective workman for Christ. IMHO, of course. But there could be a link available that discounts that belief. You'll let me know?...

409
posted on 03/29/2012 5:09:10 PM PDT
by smvoice
(Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)

>>>” I do Google searches. For Williams-Sonoma.com and Amazon, and Food Network.”

Three bookmarks and your done with Google. :)

Boy, you’re more luddite than even I am !

There’s tons of info on the internet, including several bibles, Christian classics, sermons, etc. There’s videos sermons of the preacher whose book you referenced before. You can google terms you’re not familiar with and much more.

And that’s just religion.

The two links I posted are from *books* real books, maybe they don’t count as links?

And a bunch of people who follow him like he was a god, instead of being the fantastic servant of the Church that he actually was. You think that I have a problem with Paul? Nope. I somewhat identify with him.

Masterful conclusion...

Our opponents' stunned silence is very reassuring.

Srsly??? If by "opponents" you mean those indicted as "a bunch of people who follow him (Paul) like he was a god...", then it should certainly NOT be reassuring, very or otherwise, nor surprising that "they" have not responded. No, my dear Mark, there is no response simply because no one of this imagined "bunch" post on Free Republic much less on this thread.

I genuinely hate to burst anyone's bubble and I sure hope my words do not cause you undue uncertainty but I would be remiss if I left a FRiend relishing in something of which he has no reason TO relish. :o)

412
posted on 03/29/2012 8:10:13 PM PDT
by boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)

"Show from scripture where Jesus instituted a teaching authority within the Church. This whole hierarchy that the RCC has set up is non Biblical."

Please try to focus on a single issue at a time. You have introduced three completely separate issues in to your a priori dismissal of Catholicism. I will address them one at a time:

Sola Scriptura has been discussed ad naseum in these threads and the reasons for Catholicism rejecting it have been stated thousands of times. As a Catholic I reject it as the standard for establishing a Truth. When you are able to establish that Sola Scriptura is itself completely scriptural I will again engage in a discussion of it.

A teaching authority is established in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Church. Why else would an Episcopacy have been established and referred to frequently by St. Paul? Evidence of this is found in Acts 15:

"The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;". Acts 15:6-8.

The "RCC" did not set up a hierarchy, Jesus did. The Gospels tell us exactly how and why Jesus established that His Church would be hierarchical, having Bishops (episcopoi), Priests (presbuteroi) and Deacons (diakonoi) and that it would be lead by a Pope as chosen His form of Church governance. He also established that the first Pope was Peter.

Throughout the Old Testament God had always chosen a single man to guide His Church and He has guided and protected that person through public and private Revelation. This was true of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Solomon, David and the many judges, kings and prophets that followed. It would be true of His Church too.

In His revelation Jesus specifically discussed the three possible forms of Church governance; the Democratic form, the Oligarchical form, and the Theocratic form before revealing His choice.

In this dialog Jesus asks His Disciples; "Who do the people say that I am?" (Matt 16:16). "Who do you say that I am?". This was the oligarchical form. None responded. These two forms were unambiguously rejected.

Then Peter stepped forward and without consulting the others said; "You are the Christ, the son of the living God.". In response to this Jesus revealed the basis and governance of His Church when He said:

Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Matt 16:17-19)

414
posted on 03/30/2012 12:49:49 PM PDT
by Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)

Teaching elders, Bible reading and study, all led by the Holy Spirit, is the Biblically-mandated instruction as to learning Godâs will and our way.

Scripture explains Scripture. There is nothing in the Bible that says Mary was more than a chaste, naive and faithful Jew. The RCC has turned her into a pathetic superhero who literally usurps the role of our only King and Savior.

Shame. God cannot be pleased.

The Bible is not difficult to read. Try it...without a Greek lexicon. I bet youâll understand quite a bit.

Teaching elders, Bible reading and study, all led by the Holy Spirit, is the Biblically-mandated instruction as to learning Godâs will and our way.

Are you modifying sola scriptura here by including teaching elders? Or would you maintain that Holy Scripture supports sola scriptura, defined as: scripture alone, by itself, is entirely sufficient for all teaching, doctrine, etc?

Scripture alone is sufficient for a satisfactory understanding of this life and the next, God willing.

Pray for the Holy Spirit to guide your study.

Sola Scriptura includes discussions. Much like what we’re doing now. “Study to show thyself approved.” The Jews know how to do it. Most Protestants, teaching elders included, know how to do it.

It’s Roman Catholics who have so little understanding of the Bible that when they are challenged, they can do nothing but fall back on rote responses from their aging, insular magisterium.

A priest is not “another Christ.” Mary is not “our mother” and she plays no “part in our salvation.” The pope is simple a teaching elder whose lessons are often wrong. The Bible is our final rule for faith and conduct.

"The RCC has turned her into a pathetic superhero who literally usurps the role of our only King and Savior."

I'm not looking for a dust up here, or to try to change anyone's mind. I just want to make sure when Catholicism is discussed it is discussed honestly.

The adoration and veneration of Mary began well before you have ever admitted the RCC existed. The earliest documented prayers to Mary date to the 2nd century. In addition to the Latin Rite Catholics (aka "Rome" and the "RCC", the Eastern (Orthodox), Byzantine, and Alexandrian Rite Churches, the Anglicans and some forms of Lutheranism share in Marian devotions.

We do not claim her to have superhuman powers. We only recognize her as God did, the most perfect example of a Christian and because no person has loved Jesus more completely and unconditionally as the human God entrusted His Son to, His Mother.

421
posted on 03/30/2012 3:12:28 PM PDT
by Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)

"Your own catechism says Mary is partly responsible for saving men's souls, not just by birthing Christ but by actively intervening in men's lives and decisions and influencing God's reaction to them."

That is a gross manipulation of the Catechism and reading what is not there. Permit me to simplify, to an elementary level, the Church's teaching on Mary's participation in our Salvation. Whether you agree with these doctrines and dogma's is irrelevant to an understanding of what the Church teaches.

Unlike your belief in Irresistible Grace, the Catholic Church teaches that we must all cooperate with Grace for our own Salvation. Mary, by Her unique role and perfect example of consent, cooperated in the Salvation of all. Catholics do not believe that Mary saves.

423
posted on 03/30/2012 4:18:41 PM PDT
by Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)

I’ve read the offending catechism re: Mary dozens of time. I don’t have the time to look it up again. It says what it says. Rome can try to change the meaning of words but every time it does it loses the debate.

Mary is no one’s mother but the baby Jesus. Christ ALONE saves those God has given Him to bring safely home.

Srsly??? If by "opponents" you mean those indicted as "a bunch of people who follow him (Paul) like he was a god...", then it should certainly NOT be reassuring, very or otherwise, nor surprising that "they" have not responded. No, my dear Mark, there is no response simply because no one of this imagined "bunch" post on Free Republic much less on this thread.

These two groups are largely, but not entirely coincident.

If one's beliefs come exclusively, or nearly exclusively from the Pauline Epistles, with backup from the OT, and spurn the Gospels as to the Jews only, then what can be the only conclusion? When silly statements are made to the effect that anything Paul says (on the assumption that God is Paul's ventriloquist), and anything that the Incarnated Christ said doesn't matter to Christians, why then we have a number of this 'imagined bunch' posting right here even on this thread.

I genuinely hate to burst anyone's bubble and I sure hope my words do not cause you undue uncertainty but I would be remiss if I left a FRiend relishing in something of which he has no reason TO relish. :o)

I don't relish it. It is bitter and it is something that the Church had responsibility to avoid. It is a failure of the bishops of the time and we are living with the consequences today.

425
posted on 03/30/2012 4:44:48 PM PDT
by MarkBsnr
(I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)

"Rome can try to change the meaning of words but every time it does it loses the debate."

I'm not debating or quarreling, only trying to teach. Mary is referenced over 100 times in the Catechism and in not one of them does it say she is anything other than subservient to Jesus. Those are the facts, you can do with them what you will.

426
posted on 03/30/2012 4:47:21 PM PDT
by Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)

When silly statements are made to the effect that anything Paul says (on the assumption that God is Paul's ventriloquist), and anything that the Incarnated Christ said doesn't matter to Christians, why then we have a number of this 'imagined bunch' posting right here even on this thread.

Umm, more like this:

When silly statements are made to the effect that anything Paul says (on the gleeful assumption that God is Paul's ventriloquist) matters absolutely to Christians, and at the same time,anything that the Incarnated Christ said doesn't matter to Christians whatsoever, why then we have a number of this 'imagined bunch' posting right here even on this thread.

427
posted on 03/30/2012 5:09:31 PM PDT
by MarkBsnr
(I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)

"WE" haven't determined anything of the sort that the APostles were to "judge the church" OR that the message of the Twelve and Paul were the same. How, for instance, do you explain this Scripture?

"According to the GRACE OF GOD WHICH IS GIVEN UNTO ME, as a wise masterbuilder, I HAVE LAID THE FOUNDATION, and another buildeth thereon, But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon."1 Cor. 3:10.

So on one hand, you argue vociferously that Peter cannot be the foundation because it is Christ, and on the other, you argue that Paul is actually the master builder, not Christ. Let us see the passage in context.

If you read the history of Corinth beginning in Acts, you will see that Paul had started a modest church there, but eventually they got out of hand. Paul is remonstrating with them because they are so out of control. He reminds them that he started the church there not every one, but this particular one and is trying to get everyone to do their part within the Church context.

Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone for the Kingdom gospel, the Messianic Church built by the Twelve, AND the gospel of the grace of God, built by Paul. BOTH with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. But ONE is for an earthly kingdom of believers, Israel, and the OTHER is for a heavenly body of believers, US.

John 17: 20I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.m 22And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.

There will be no separation.

ONe more thing, it's not "anti-catholic fantasies" that drive us.

It sure is. Hubris is a powerful thing. So is power, as the princes of Germany found out during the Reformation, and Calvin found out during his occupation of Geneva.

428
posted on 03/30/2012 5:29:47 PM PDT
by MarkBsnr
(I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)

I think I have also explained to you why Peter converted the first Gentile, not Paul. But I will explain it again. Although just reading the Scriptures on it should be enough. Acts, Chapter 10. Peter has a vision. WHAT?? WHY on earth would God need to show Peter a vision about Cornelius? Weren't the Twelve instructed to go ALL the world, every nation, with the gospel? There should have been NO REASON to give Peter a vision of something he already knew. UNLESS something else is going on here. And of course, according to Scripture, it is.

So? Peter knew Jesus was the Christ and still denied Him three times. I think that this shows that Peter, given the enormous gift of his office, was still just a man and needed the help of God and the Church in order to get the job done.

Make no mistake, Peter didn't jump on the first train and make haste to Cornelius to save a Gentile, Acts 10: 17 says that Peter DOUBTED IN HIMSELF WHAT THIS VISION WHICH HE HAD SEEN SHOULD MEAN"...

And he also doubted when he walked on the water towards Christ. So? Christ buttressed him.

So what was the point in God sending a vision to Peter to go to Cornelius, the Gentile? So that, when Paul came to the Twelve with his gospel to the Gentiles, Peter would have a starting place with Gentiles. That vision from God. That he doubted. Because he knew it was unlawful to come unto one of another nation. THAT'S how Peter knew Paul's gospel to the uncircumcision was true. And therefore loosed himself and the 11 to take the gospel of the kingdom to all nations, giving the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, with their gospel of the grace of God. That's what Galatians, Chapter 2 is all about.

You're not seriously proposing to hang your theological hat on this, are you? There is nothing in your thesis that says that the Apostles abandoned their Commission, rather, that they were tentative and this was a kick in the backside for them.

Remember in spite of his words, Paul spent most of his missionary time with the Jews, not the Gentiles. You'd be convinced if you traced Paul's journeys.

429
posted on 03/30/2012 5:43:17 PM PDT
by MarkBsnr
(I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)

You were the one who said you needed the magesterium for teaching and understanding.

>>Why else would an Episcopacy have been established and referred to frequently by St. Paul?<<

Acts 15 in no way sets up an Episcopacy. Clarifying the change from law to grace as the apostles were doing was in no way setting a hierarchy in the church. And no, Jesus did not set up a hierarchy. Their were no Priests set up in the New Testament church.

>>that it would be lead by a Pope as chosen His form of Church governance.<<

Would you give scripture book, chapter, and verse for that?

>>He also established that the first Pope was Peter.<<

Absolute nonsense. We have been through that verse before. First of all that is not what that ONE verse is saying. Second if the RCC rests its foundation for having a pope on one verse of scripture its ludicrous. Peter was never even the leader of the church in Rome for crying out loud.

>>Throughout the Old Testament God had always chosen a single man to guide His Church<<

Old Testament church? News to me!

>>Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.<<

Revealed what? Revealed that "You are the Christ, the son of the living God."

>>I also say to you that you are Peter,<<

Jesus acknowledges who Peter is as Peter had acknowledged who Jesus was.

>>and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.<<

On what Rock? On Jesus the Rock of ages. How do we know that? God said so.

Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

The RCC blasphemes God by trying to misinterpret ONE verse and disregard all the rest of scripture reference to who the Rock truly is.

In the first place, I didn't say it. Paul said it. Through the Holy Spirit. Meaning God said it. Paul laid the foundation of the dispensation of the grace of God, of which Paul was the Apostle. How much clearer can it be made? The Twelve did not. Paul did. With Christ as the chief cornerstone. Just like Christ being the chief cornerstone of the Messianic Church of the Kingdom, of which the Twelve were the Apostles. They are both built on the foundation of Christ. One being for a KINGDOM OF BELIEVERS, and one being for a BODY OF BELIEVERS. BOTH on Christ. As Messiah AND the head of the Body.

As for your "He (Paul) reminds them that he stard the church there (Corinth) NOT EVERY ONE, BUT THIS PARTICULAR ONE and is trying to get everyone to do their part within the Church context."

"Besides those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the CARE OF ALL THE CHURCHES." 2 Cor. 11:28. Which CHURCHES? Certainly not the Messianic Church, that was the job of the Twelve. Preaching Christ as Messiah, to persuade the Nation of Israel to accept Christ as Messiah, so He would return to set up His Kingdom. So, what CHURCHES did Paul have care of? The churches of the body of Christ, founded on the grace of God and the finished work of Christ, where Gentiles were saved apart from the covenants of promise made to Israel. Both preached Christ, one for Kingdom Jews, and one for Gentiles. Until Israel is blinded and set aside in Acts 28. Then it was to Jew and Gentile alike, without preference, all based on the reconciliation of God and man.

If you would take the time to read Galatians, Chapter 2, you would see the gospel of the CIRCUMCISION and the gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION being discussed, and agreed upon by the Twelve and Paul.

431
posted on 03/30/2012 6:23:56 PM PDT
by smvoice
(Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)

In the first place, I didn't say it. Paul said it. Through the Holy Spirit. Meaning God said it. Paul laid the foundation of the dispensation of the grace of God, of which Paul was the Apostle. How much clearer can it be made? The Twelve did not. Paul did. With Christ as the chief cornerstone. Just like Christ being the chief cornerstone of the Messianic Church of the Kingdom, of which the Twelve were the Apostles. They are both built on the foundation of Christ. One being for a KINGDOM OF BELIEVERS, and one being for a BODY OF BELIEVERS. BOTH on Christ. As Messiah AND the head of the Body.

As for your "He (Paul) reminds them that he stard the church there (Corinth) NOT EVERY ONE, BUT THIS PARTICULAR ONE and is trying to get everyone to do their part within the Church context."

"Besides those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the CARE OF ALL THE CHURCHES." 2 Cor. 11:28. Which CHURCHES? Certainly not the Messianic Church, that was the job of the Twelve. Preaching Christ as Messiah, to persuade the Nation of Israel to accept Christ as Messiah, so He would return to set up His Kingdom. So, what CHURCHES did Paul have care of? The churches of the body of Christ, founded on the grace of God and the finished work of Christ, where Gentiles were saved apart from the covenants of promise made to Israel. Both preached Christ, one for Kingdom Jews, and one for Gentiles. Until Israel is blinded and set aside in Acts 28. Then it was to Jew and Gentile alike, without preference, all based on the reconciliation of God and man.

If you would take the time to read Galatians, Chapter 2, you would see the gospel of the CIRCUMCISION and the gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION being discussed, and agreed upon by the Twelve and Paul.

432
posted on 03/30/2012 6:24:34 PM PDT
by smvoice
(Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)

I've read the offending catechism re: Mary dozens of time. I don't have the time to look it up again. It says what it says. Rome can try to change the meaning of words but every time it does it loses the debate.

Mary is no one's mother but the baby Jesus. Christ ALONE saves those God has given Him to bring safely home.

According to the Second Vatican Council:

Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix.

I most certainly AM proposing to "hang my theological hat on this". For 3 Scriptural reasons.

1."Go ye therefore, and teach ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching THEM to OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Mat. 28:19,20.

2. "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among ALL NATIONS, BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM." Luke 24:44-47.

Who was Jesus Christ speaking to and commanding? The Twelve.

"But CONTRARIWISE, when they SAW THAT THE GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION (THE GENTILES< THE NATIONS) WAS COMMITTED UNTO ME, as the GOSPEL OF THE CIRCUMCISION WAS UNTO PETER: (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the APOSTLESHIP OF THE CIRCUMCISION, the SAME was MIGHTY IN ME TOWARD THE GENTILES..." 2 Gal. 2:7,8.

"And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, PERCEIVED THE GRACE THAT WAS GIVEN UNTO ME (Paul), they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of FELLOWSHIP; that WE SHOULD GO unto the heathen and THEY UNTO THE CIRCUMCISION." 2 Gal. 2:9.

What does that say to anyone who can read? That when James, Peter and John perceived the GRACE (not that Paul was graceful, but the dispensation of the GRACE OF GOD, the GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION) that was given to Paul, they LOOSED THEMSELVES of THEIR COMMISSION to go to ALL NATIONS (that would be GENTILES), and AGREED to confine their ministry to THE CIRCUMCISION, while Paul went to ALL NATIONS (THE GENTILES, THE UNCIRCUMCISION).

You would have to be purposely refusing to see this to miss it. I know you don't want to see that. But it doesn't change the truth. Once again, I didn't say it. Paul said it. By the Holy Spirit, who said it. Meaning God said it.

And what was loosed on earth was loosed in heaven. The Twelve remained in and around Jerusalem, Israel, Palestine, preaching the gospel of the circumcision. As long as Israel remained operational and could accept, as a Nation, Christ as their Messiah.

434
posted on 03/30/2012 6:58:46 PM PDT
by smvoice
(Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)

You BELIEVE God said so. Catholics BELIEVE something different. I am only stating Catholic belief, I am not arguing the merits.

In the 10 years I have been participating on these threads I haven't seen anyone's mind changed one way or the other. Minds and hearts are not changed by our arguments, but by the Holy Spirit and not one second sooner. All either of us can hope to accomplish is that the other has an accurate understanding of the what and why of each other's belief.

May the Holy Spirit be with you. Peace and Blessings.

NL

435
posted on 03/30/2012 7:04:10 PM PDT
by Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)

"I've read the offending catechism re: Mary dozens of time. I don't have the time to look it up again. It says what it says. Rome can try to change the meaning of words but every time it does it loses the debate.

I've already said I am not debating. Please do not tr to make this what it is not.

"Mary is no one's mother but the baby Jesus."

At least you have moved past the "Mary had other children nonsense"

Christ ALONE saves those God has given Him to bring safely home."

At last, we have common ground.

According to the Second Vatican Council:

Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix."

Don't you think it is just a little disingenuous to give that one line out of the entire Lumen Gentium? You ought to have someone teach the entire thing to you rather than grabbing snippets of it off of the internet. It is a magnificent document. The preceding and following lines put it into proper perspective and show it meaning something completely different that you are implying"

"This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.(15*) By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.(16*) This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.(17*)"

Who lies?

Lying implies motives and is beneath the dignity of this forum.

I would have thought, for all of the times you have posted from 2nd Timothy on these threads you would have read the following. It might temper your demeanor.

"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will." 2 Timothy 2:24-26

438
posted on 03/30/2012 7:32:50 PM PDT
by Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)

When silly statements are made to the effect that anything Paul says (on the gleeful assumption that God is Paul's ventriloquist) matters absolutely to Christians, and at the same time,anything that the Incarnated Christ said doesn't matter to Christians whatsoever, why then we have a number of this 'imagined bunch' posting right here even on this thread.

Since you seem convinced this "group" is represented in this thread, perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing us to the post(s) that actually say what you claim. Just to clarify this scavenger hunt, believing that the Apostle Paul spoke under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he composed his letters is in no way saying "God is Paul's ventriloquist" and, that you would put it that way, only proves that you reject your OWN catechism. Maybe you should get a handle on what you really believe before you try criticizing those that may or may not be "coincident" here.

443
posted on 03/30/2012 8:57:32 PM PDT
by boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)

Its Roman Catholics who have so little understanding of the Bible that when they are challenged, they can do nothing but fall back on rote responses from their aging, insular magisterium."

Where do you turn to get the meaning of "Epiousios" ( Επιούσιος) since it is a hapax legomenon (a Greek phrase meaning 'a word used only once') within the Gospels within the Lord's Prayer?

Even before the Gospels were written the Early Christians and Early Church Fathers, whom you referred to as an aging insular magisterium, used the phrase "ho artos hēmōn ho epiousios", within the liturgy as a name for the Eucharist. St. Jerome translated it as "Pamem Supersubstantiālium, which was translated as "supersubstantial" bread in the Douay Rheims Bible.

444
posted on 03/30/2012 9:08:58 PM PDT
by Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)

Even before the Gospels were written the Early Christians and Early Church Fathers, whom you referred to as an aging insular magisterium, used the phrase "ho artos hÄmÅn ho epiousios", within the liturgy as a name for the Eucharist. St. Jerome translated it as "Pamem Supersubstantiālium, which was translated as "supersubstantial" bread in the Douay Rheims Bible.

Can you explain why the "Early Church Fathers", or the early Christians for that matter, would have used a completely different word for "bread" than the one used by Jesus Christ in the Lord's Prayer as well as the other references to it throughout Scripture? The Greek word is "artos" and it means: food of any kind; food composed of flour mixed with water and baked; loaves which were consecrated to the Lord; of the bread used at the love-feasts and at the Lord's Table. As to Jerome's translation from Greek to Latin (the Vulgate), he may have tried to insert Catholic understanding for the word, but even in the Douay-Rheims Bible, the word is STILL translated as "bread" (see Luke 11:3). It would not be the only mistake Jerome made. But, besides all that, the word JESUS used is no different than all the other 400+ times the word "bread" was used throughout Scripture. I don't disagree that the bread used in the observance of the Lord's Supper is regarded as "set apart", but it remains bread, nevertheless. Even the "shewbread" used in the Jewish Temple used the common word in Hebrew (lechem) for bread.

Perhaps the same dynamic happened with the early use of the word "presbyteros", meaning Elders. The Greek word sympresbyteros, meaning "a fellow elder" is used in I Peter 5:1 and is the only time that word is used. But the root word for elder is "presbyteros".

The word episkopē is used for bishop or bishoprick (Acts 1:20, I Tim.3:1) and it means "Overseer" or one who has oversight as elders or "visitation". Another word, episkeptomai, is also used in several places to mean "visit" or "visitor". In Acts 6:3, it is translated as "to look out for" and was used by the Apostles when they called together the disciples and said, "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.". The Apostles appointed men to take over for them in the sense of some of their duties so that the Apostles could devote their time to prayer and the ministry of the word. Verse 5-6 says, after prayer and agreement, "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid [their] hands on them.". The word, Episcope, that Roman Catholics interpret to mean "priest", did NOT have that meaning until much later.

445
posted on 03/30/2012 11:19:32 PM PDT
by boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)

"Can you explain why the "Early Church Fathers", or the early Christians for that matter, would have used a completely different word for "bread" than the one used by Jesus Christ in the Lord's Prayer as well as the other references to it throughout Scripture?"

Can you explain why the "Early Church Fathers", or the early Christians for that matter, would have used a completely different word for "bread" than the one used by Jesus Christ in the Lord's Prayer as well as the other references to it throughout Scripture?

There are two renditions of the Lords Prayer in the Gospels; Matthew 6:9-13 and the shorter version in Luke 11:2-4. Since both are different the logical conclusion is that no ONE form of the two versions records the ipsissima vox Jesu (exact words of Jesus). It is likely that the prayer was given in Aramaic and that the Greek versions were attempting to give the intent of the prayer.

Being neither a fluent speaker of Aramaic or Koine Greek I cant comment on the idiomatic practices and conventions of the first three centuries only to say that the word translated Artos is used allegorically to mean food, the necessities of life, wisdom, the living bread and the body of Christ. It is always a challenge and often points of disagreement to determine when the word is literal and when it is allegorical. As these forums demonstrate daily there is no universally accepted obvious.

When we read the earliest Greek manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, AD 325) we see the use of Epiousion to describe the nature or substance of the bread. Early Christians associated this with the Eucharist. The Eastern Catholics still use this Greek version in their liturgy. The Coptics use the phrase "bread of tomorrow".

All of this points to the need for an extra-biblical sources to understand the simple and clear Scripture. We Catholics believe that Jesus gave the Church with its Magisterium to satisfy this need. Non-Catholics seek to satisfy that need with a variety of sources, not all honest or reliable.

446
posted on 03/31/2012 9:43:00 AM PDT
by Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)

I'll go with the title given Mary by the Holy Spirit Himself in the Scripture He breathed out and inspired......

Acts 1:12-1412 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. 13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

447
posted on 03/31/2012 2:25:23 PM PDT
by metmom
( For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)

I'll go with the title given Mary by the Holy Spirit Himself in the Scripture He breathed out and inspired......

Acts 1:12-1412 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. 13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

448
posted on 03/31/2012 2:28:45 PM PDT
by metmom
( For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)

The only confusion I have is why anyone would follow anything from Darby or Scofield. If you divide the word properly, you will arrive at what the Church has taught for 2000 years, not oddities that amateurs in their cups arrive at in the wee hours.

In the first place, I didn't say it. Paul said it. Through the Holy Spirit. Meaning God said it. Paul laid the foundation of the dispensation of the grace of God, of which Paul was the Apostle. How much clearer can it be made? The Twelve did not. Paul did. With Christ as the chief cornerstone. Just like Christ being the chief cornerstone of the Messianic Church of the Kingdom, of which the Twelve were the Apostles. They are both built on the foundation of Christ. One being for a KINGDOM OF BELIEVERS, and one being for a BODY OF BELIEVERS. BOTH on Christ. As Messiah AND the head of the Body.

Right. Paul is the person of Christ who really matters to Christians. The actual person of Christ is a precursor and is only to the Jews. Gotcha.

"Besides those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the CARE OF ALL THE CHURCHES." 2 Cor. 11:28. Which CHURCHES? Certainly not the Messianic Church, that was the job of the Twelve. Preaching Christ as Messiah, to persuade the Nation of Israel to accept Christ as Messiah, so He would return to set up His Kingdom. So, what CHURCHES did Paul have care of? The churches of the body of Christ, founded on the grace of God and the finished work of Christ, where Gentiles were saved apart from the covenants of promise made to Israel. Both preached Christ, one for Kingdom Jews, and one for Gentiles. Until Israel is blinded and set aside in Acts 28. Then it was to Jew and Gentile alike, without preference, all based on the reconciliation of God and man.

Each bishop individually is responsible for the care of his own flock. All of the bishops together are responsible for the care of all of their flock. Paul is reminding the miscreants in Corinth that he started them and is responsible for them and many more. But I appreciate the extent of the explanation that you guys have moved beyond Christianity and into Paulianity. It is something that I noted some years ago, but with much denial on your part. I appreciate that you have chosen this point in time to come out from the closet, as it were.

If you would take the time to read Galatians, Chapter 2, you would see the gospel of the CIRCUMCISION and the gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION being discussed, and agreed upon by the Twelve and Paul.

If you would take the time to read all of Galatians, you would see what Paul is trying to tell them. These Galatians were beseiged by the Judaizers who are trying to subvert them. Paul is trying to tell them of his Apostolic authority and setting it up as the main argument to sway them back to the Faith.

All things to all men, remember? Paul is preaching the Gospel of Christ. If you deny the Gospel as preached by Christ, what makes you Christian?

449
posted on 03/31/2012 3:50:28 PM PDT
by MarkBsnr
(I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)

I think I’ll just turn this post on low and let it simmer slowly for awhile...you are doing more to show people God’s Word of truth, WRONGLY divided, than I could possibly begin to address right now. Let’s just see what kind of Scripture Stew you are attempting to make. A little chopping here, a little dicing there, a couple of unknown ingredients added for texture.. :)

450
posted on 03/31/2012 4:00:46 PM PDT
by smvoice
(Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.